tv [untitled] July 6, 2013 2:00am-2:31am PDT
followed the rules of the san francisco building department and the planning commission and negotiated through various conflicts on the redesign of the property. but the owners when confronted about the changes immediately hired lawyers and refused to negotiate with the community. and the fair oaks community coalition followed the rules that are in place to protect the public, health and safety of a density populated city like this. and to defend the public interest from over zelous developers, the city signed off on this agreement. just because the owners did not participate in the original planning and redesign from the very beginning, does not now give them license to run rough shot over the agreements that were agreed to by the planning department. signatures and a petition by the new comers is a demonstration not of good planning but clutter of
politics, the official agreement with the community should be honored and signed. >> >> honorable commissioners, my name is charles moser. and as you heard, i live a few doors away. i am also a charter member of the focc. and founding member, which has had other names over the years. and but we have always been involved with and improving fair oaks street and the community around it. we are not a bunch of pranks who like to complain about the real estate issues and to come before the board. we most recently won a justice award from the district attorney's office for assisting substan hally some survivors of sexual attacks in and around our street. we are interested in the neighborhood improvement. and when we heard that this
some what decrepid building was going to be redone and turned into a residence, we were happy about it and we were interested in what the developers were doing. and we entered into a good faith agreement and it was signed off by the planning department and mr. wang. i have made many improvements to my house over 40 years and i have always followed the process of a permit and it is seeums burdensome dealing with the city process but i respect the process and this is a density populated city. we have to have some way of doing these things. and i report the necessity for it so i am asking you to up
hold the design request, and adhere to the original agreement, which we all entered into in good faith. thank you. >> thank you. >> >> my name is gary goal and i live on fair oaks street. i also sent in a letter which was aparently not noted in the planning department package that was on-line. but also a nearby neighbor that was involved in the discussions with the developer and the architect over, and i ask you
>> project sponsor you with five minutes. >> i am the attorney for the project sponsors. first of all they did push this and did not apply for a permit because they honestly did not understand the planning process in san francisco and having lived there for 27 years and it is something that is alien to the experience. and now, they came they were
told that they were told that they cannot do anything, and they were moving it and they were surprised and i advised them to immediately apply for a permit to ask for permission, and they did that. it is twofold, one is that you have a letter before you that basically said that at that time they have it in place and they would have had to have wait for a dr hearing and they would have lost the loan and the other side of that they would have lost a savings. and because they investment, in this project. and in 19, in 2010, the economy was still bad and it is very difficult to get loan for any department. and now let's go to the agreement. the truth of all of the agreement is not binding, on
any subsequent purchaser. number two, if we go to the list of the agreement, it is so to me, it is to me a little bit over reaching, in terms of how you dictate to somebody it is not that you can't say that the building and like that, which i can see can be very object able, you have to do it to make your garage door disappear, and dictating on the basis of privacy from across the street which is a 60 foot wide street to say, you cannot have the window basically that your sil line is at 60 feet high and then instead of allowing
planting, and as a way to screen, to provide privacy from across the street, it is a limitation on the size of the only usable open space. the way that it faces actually casts a shadow on that deck and that is one of the reasons that they allow that screen to disappear and just use the planters. so that they can plan to resolve the issue of privacy. there is no circumstance in this, as far as the agreement, the agreement is with another party, like i said, it is not binding to them, and to this
particular permit holder and finally, your department every day encourages the neighbors to work the agreement and then, when the agreement is presented to them, and the plans is... it is basically conform with it, then the plan assign is solved and then that is not does mean that it is a department policy that if there is an agreement that nothing can ever be changed. so that i think that is the other, consideration that i don't think that that is any policy out here to set that nobody can ever be changed just because it is an agreement at one time. that somehow is binding. and forever in the future. even the legal agreements have provisions that can be changed if the parties agree.
>> thank you. >> thank you. >> now calling speakers in support of the project sponsor? >> you have three minutes, my name is kegt enaaron and i live at 201 fair oaks and prior to moving there i lived in bullering game and raise myed family there and when my last doterer was preparing to go off to college we look to move to san francisco sfo all of the reasons that people of our age do that. we were looking forward to living in the city, and into our retirement. and we looked at multiple homes and searched for certain criteria, and including access to public transportation, appropriate room layout for us and for our children, and outdoor space. 201 fair oaks met all of our criteria with the proximity to
muni and upper family room and roof deck for outdoor space we purchased the house in july 2011 and moved in very excited since the house has what we were looking for in terms of finishes and wooden stone floors and bathrooms and etc.. and as far as the roof deck was concerned, it was our own outdoor space, and while the agent told us that there was an agreement to the size, that we could use as deck, we were told at the same time that it could be changed. and that made sense to us that we could use the deck because of in our 27 years in living in burliing game in carrying projects we have come to understand which projects required the permit and which didn't and which might fall in the gray area and certainly this one, for example, the work on our front store entranceway did not require a permit.
and since the usable deck size is defined only by the planters on wheels, moving these seems to us a great forward task that would not require a permit. >> the planters had to be on wheels since these have been stationary there is no access and no way to access the rest of the roof for maintenance or for emergency given the fact that the family room windows on that floor are 6 feet per the mandated plans. >> we bought this house in good faith looking forward to the next stage of our lives and everything that behave done has been in good faith as well. we never intentionally violated any city rules and i would like to end with the cover letter of the e-mail that mr. segal s former president of the focc sent to the commissioners. he wrote to me just early they are week, i really struggled with how the process that we went there prior to our ownership and also support your
totally reasonable desire for a larger deck and i think that he even acknowledges that it is a reasonable desire for this, thank you. >> the last speaker in support of the sponsor? >> my name is alegra and i am a student at uc berkeley across the bay. but, i consider 201 fair oaks san francisco is to be my family home i often come here on weekends and i bring friends home with me sometimes from school and i have a lot of friends in the area as well. but i am also here tonight to speak on behalf of my sister, my younger sister who was actually at work earlier. because my sister actually plays on a competitive well she
played on a competitive in high school and joined the brown university division one water polo team once she started college. so for her, it was necessary to attend swim practices at 6:00 a.m., and since the pool that she practiced at was down on the peninsula she needed to leave the house at 5:00 a.m. and there was no public transport at this hour as you probably know and there was no way for her to get there. rather than driving. but the reason that i bring this up actually, is because several times she had to leave the house early but her car was blocked into the garage because as per the request, the garage was painted to kind of camouflage into the rest of the house and so she missed practice and coaches take this
very seriously after this happened several times, my parents painted the garage white, which is the same color as the molding so that the garage door would stand out and would do away with the problem, so this is just one example of you know how something like this could effect us. lastly, i wanted to speak to the point of there may be some of the new comers in the area, and i think that it might be important to take those requests into consideration. as i know some of you ignorant new comers might actually make-up some of the vibrantcy of the mission district as i mean that you walked on valencia and you see that it is with young people who make-up a lot of the part of the mission. so thanks so much. >> bye. >> thank you. >> any other speakers in support of the project sponsor?
>> good evening, my name is chandra askin and i live a block and a half away from the home. and i have lived on fair oaks street for almost ten years and i might be considered one of those new comers. and since the fair oaks coalition has been around for a very long time. i don't, i believe when i approached fair oaks street, this process of negotiating i thinks that the process was just taking place as a sort of dingy laundry mat was changing into a developer's hands and i was not a part of that process, i think that i just moved into the neighborhood and i was not aware of the process going on perhaps. but since then, i have i watched the development of that building, and i walked down that street, every day, if not once, twice with my dog. i enjoyed watching the development from the dingy laundy mat to what is really a
beautiful home. and i appreciate it actually see the deck developed above the on the roof. and i enjoy seeing outdoor areas that people can enjoy and i have continued to enjoy it as i walk by that house once if not twice a day. so i am really in support of the ability to bring their roof deck out to the para pit and you know we live in a city where houses are very close to each other. sometimes the only way to get privacy is by putting the windows down that is my experience on fair oaks street. i am hoping that we can agree to disagree as neighbors and still be neighborly. and so, i am again, in support
of the roof deck expansion, thank you. >> thank you. >> are there any other speakers in support of the project sponsor? >> hello, good evening, my name is karin hofmann and i also live at 42 fair oaks. and i am support of the roof deck. and i think that it is important that we all have a little bit of space, and i don't feel that this infringes on anyone's privacy, within the neighborhood and i think that it just makes for another little special place for people to hang out in the house, thank you. >> any other speakers in support of the project sponsor? >> okay. seeing none, dr requests you have a two minute rebuttal if you choose. >> >> i really think that this issue well in mind. so nothing further. >> thank you. >> project sponsor you have a
two minute rebuttal. >> i have submitted an extensive brief and it is getting late. >> all right. >> i will be glad to answer questions. >> thank you. >> okay the public hearing is then closed and opening up to commissioners, commissioner antonini? >> the dr requestor, i know that if you could answer some questions. you know, that you have this agreement that was or took place with the previous owners and it is apparent that is the agreement does not have unlike a conditional use which goes with the property, i guess is agreement does not have the status that it remains with the property after it is sold. however, you are hoping that the owners will implement parts of the agreement. and i guess that what i am interested in knowing is what are the issues that are really key here because there were some concern about the historic
nature of the building but, this is the size of the deck a key part of it? because it seems like if they enlarged their deck, it might not interfere with the building appearance that much. >> well there is a change, say the owners moved in and they moved the wind screen to where it was not visible from the street. and back to the edge and that was like shocking and i mean in a way. because as planning department, and that was a character in the building and it just does not look right. now what is changed since we filed the dr is just recently my understanding is that the latest plan is to you know, it is really just the plan, and as we go along here. is to move the wind screen and so that is gone and that is a plus. and you know, it is the different... (inaudible) should be present or not and the deck at all. and what they reduce it.
but i guess what remains is our belief that the roof deck configuration of the roof deck should be as agreed, set back. there were some privacy issues and it is going to come down to. >> so what i am understanding is that the other parts of the conditions including the garage door problem, that was alluded to is not... >> no, that and by the way, the (inaudible) it was the developer, it was remodeling the whole place,... and the owners and it was not the owner per se and the owner build, i guess, and i want to point out that is really a development thing and so, it is a little, hazier in that, and should it be buying and there is a little different if you had it there and five years later somebody buys a property and then they don't know about this thing and
maybe this is different. here, i think that we are dealing with the agent of the owners and they bought it and i think that they bought it before they moved in. >> okay. >> okay, i guess that my point is that i am trying to get to the specifics of what part of the agreement that the dr requesters find to be objectable. >> at this point it is the size of the deck. >> so we can focus on that. and then the commissioners can get an idea of whether they feel and your main concern on the size would be presumably because it is visible from the street and it detracts from the historic appearance of the house or... >> no the wind screen is not... and the deck is (inaudible). >> okay. so that does not sound like it has a historic issue. >> no. >> okay. i will see what the other commissioners have to say. i am just trying to find a way that the current owners can enjoy a little more open space
out there and as well as it is not bothering anybody in the neighborhood i think that it should be okay. >> they do have a deck. that is the question of size. >> okay. >> commissioners? >> okay, i guess for me, we have to remember that there was a dr filed originally. and because of that dr, the developer and the neighborhood, then, took the time to negotiate the agreement. which is something that we always tell people to do. when they are in this kind of a situation, is can you guys just go back and work it out? >> and so they worked it out. and the developer did not get everything that he wanted apparently and the neighborhood did not get everything that they wanted and i don't think that they wanted the penthouse there, but you know they said, okay.
and i don't know the specifics of all of what was negotiated. but we are now talking about the deck. but what is important to me is that there was an original dr filed on this same subject that then they negotiated and i will repeat again that this is exactly what we want both parties to do. and we tell that to people every time we get a dr, it is kind of like maybe you could go in the hall and negotiate the terms and we will give you ten minutes and if you can come back and tell us. this took a lot longer than that. and in some ways the neighborhood, i think has some assurance or believed that they had some assurance that this was something that the department accepted because mr. wang's e-mail specifically says, the site permit, and i will not site the number.
will be approved with revised plans that have been agreed upon by you and the developer assume that his name is troy or whatever. and the iten cal called the revised plans will be saved in the discretionary review docket for future records. i know what the staff is going to say this has no standing, i don't care if it has any standing or not, it is in the record it is what mr. wang sent back to the neighborhood and they have every reason to believe that the department would look at this and say this is what happened and we accept it. and now, i think that we should accept it and i am going to make a motion to take dr, and approve the original project that was filed back when mr. wang wrote this e-mail.
>> agreements are made between private property owners and neighbors that result in the withdraw of a discretion review. because that agreement is made, that does not necessarily mean that the staff's position would have been to take the discretionary review, what it does is eliminates the dr. >> and my point of why we do this. >> right. >> is to eliminate the dr. >> otherwise, why would we be involved in telling people to work it out in the first place? >> because the neighbor has the right to submit a permit to make modifications. >> it makes a mockery of the whole process. >> commissioners i think that there is a misunderstanding. >> staff did not approve a agreement. >> i know that the staff did not approve anything. the staff worked it out. it is a private agreement. i understand that. we have no jurisdiction over that. we want them to work it out
privately and en we should respect that process >> i don't think that it is the position of the department to accept a plan because the private parties agree to it. we approve the set of plans. >> okay. >> and if this project came to us today with the same form that it did before, we will take the same position on the dr. >> and that is not the point. >> but it is the point for us and maybe that the commission's responsibility or the commission believes that it should honor our private agreement, but it is not in our position, our position should be to look at a set of plans to see if they are appropriate. >> commissioner hillis? >> to follow up on that question, if we took this, if this commission took the dr and kind of ratified the agreement, could the new owner come back today and file a permit to expand this deck? >> commissioners? >> yes, they could. >> but it is their right as a property owner and they can
expand it. >> and the dr, when can they do that? if we approve the dr today could they come back tomorrow and approve the permit. >> yes, this is from a cu or you can make a decision without prejudice and they have a year to come back with the same exact request and in this instance if it is a code complying request, we have to respect that permit and review it and give our professional recommendation on it and if it results in a discretionary review bring it back to this body. in this instance they came in with a revision to that deck, and we did the notification process because we knew that there were neighbors who opposed the alteration and they were notified and the discretion review was filed, and it was brought back, because of prior agreement had been made, it does not negate us the inability to not follow through with the process. >> excuse me, with all due respect, i think that